Lock-On's Current Multiplayer State

[Frostie]

Id much rather have "Air Quakers" flying in Lock On than not.

I wouldn't say AirQuake is a bad thing , its quite enjoyable for a blast, but can get tiresome and repetitive after a while a bit like space invaders.

[S77th-konkussion]

 

This term "AirQuaker" really is starting to sound very snobby to me.

 

 

Bingo. For many, it is a catch-all excuse as to why they just can't be bothered with joining the fun online.

 

It's individual choice, but if the attitude is: "I'm not flying there/screw that- that's just airquake" Shut up. The people who provide the servers, and people who appreciate them are doing just fine.

 

I wonder how many people that demand perfect military organization- Plans, goals, assignments etc.. from start to finish -fly in the events that come closest to providing exactly that? (LOCERF) Probably not many.

[Grimes]

We can all have our cake and eat it to.

[mvsgas]

I define "Air quake" as:

1) When a group of people take off from taxi way. Why?

2) Go to combat area all the way in burner, not even try to hide or maneuver. What is the rush?

3) Shoot all their missiles at one target, go back land, re-armed and takeoff, repeat.

 

The other day I had a good flight with Mig-Ger and we did not even fire a shot A2A. We did little A2G and did night Traps. Thats is a good example of fun multilayer in LOMAC. But there is the other kind; The other day I was trying to show a MVS member about LOMAC FC. He had the game for a while but had not given it a chance. So we are on A-10s, and I was showing him how things work. While doing that, one guy/girl join in a SU-25T and the only thing he did was shoot at aircraft. Not once did I saw a A2G target be attacked by him. Why go to a A2G server to shoot at other aircraft? Just wandering about some peoples approach to the game that is all, and that is what ruins a lot of the fun online. IMO anyway

[S77th-GOYA]

In other words, if I can shoot at people and get shot down by people within 5 minutes of taking off, I call that airquake.

 

And I would call that losing the battle for air superiority. Unless it is a 10 minute flight to the enemy base. ;)

[cool_t]

Id much rather have "Air Quakers" flying in Lock On than not. This then opens the window for a few good pilots to make a plan and a mission with some expected fighter oposition.

 

This term "AirQuaker" really is starting to sound very snobby to me.

 

The more air Quakers in the 169th dedicated the better. Bring it on!

 

Yummmm, more SPAMRAM fotter on my way to the A-50s.

[Boberro]

I define "Air quake" as:

Why go to a A2G server to shoot at other aircraft? Just wandering about some peoples approach to the game that is all, and that is what ruins a lot of the fun online. IMO anyway

 

Don't forget that killing somebody from Vikhr is amazing feel, example me I am always so excited when I kill aircraft by Vikrs ^^. It is war, on map enemy can fly to you and kill you. It is nothing un-natural. Be aware i can only say.

[mvsgas]

Don't forget that killing somebody from Vikhr is amazing feel, example me I am always so excited when I kill aircraft by Vikrs ^^. It is war, on map enemy can fly to you and kill you. It is nothing un-natural. Be aware i can only say.

 

Oh. Boberoo by all means, If you kill an aircraft with a Vikrs, it is all yours. I know that is anyone sees me I'm free game. But one thing is to run into each other in the A2G server and another is just to look for other aircraft to shoot. I have no idea if the guys used Vikrs. I was not shotdown. I just kept seeing the sign on top of the screen when this guys would get another aircraft and then he would get shoot down by AAA or a SAM himself. He even went as far as to kill his own KA-50. When I left he was -40 points. Just saying, u want to dog fight why go to A2G server? Not my server, so if I see stuff like that I just leave. I was just commenting on it.

[centermass]

In LOMAC I fly guns only due to the missile modeling. I fly heaters also, but most people only want guns or BVR.

[Kaptein_Damli]

I quit playing LO:FC online because it only has one map. I started playing IL-2 1946 online instead and it is a hell of alot funnier. It really keeps you flying skills sharp and the deflection shooting is more skill than just lock a target and fire. IL-2 has lots of maps, and with the new 4.09b1 beta patch, just take a look at Slovakia map. Lots of details. Lo:FC has one map, ok, it´s big, but in matter of time you know where everything is and it´s no more fun. I want more maps, maps with lots of mountains, not just flat land and sea like LO:FC. You have one part of the map with mountains and that´s all. Everything else is almost flat.

 

Even Falcon has more maps than LO:FC. Nice valleys etc. I have Falcon 4.0 AF but can´t stand the dated graphics and the flight model. IL-2 1946 is taken all my free time now together with Arma and OFP (stills plays it!). What´s fun with Lock On is formation flying and acrobatics. I still enjoy flying some airshows with pods. In the beginning me and some mates did fly formation, but all of us converted to IL-2 1946. It is because of varity. All the planes you can fly, the great FM, graphics and most of all fun! ED has many things to lean from Oleg...

[GGTharos]

Keep at it Bearitall, like you said, you can't please everyone. :)

[Bucic]

I agree with language barrier. I am also rather shy, and when I think what is correct form for sentences in English, what time use to this form maybe Past Simple or Past Continous or Past perfect Simple or which good time from 3 Future times oO to don't make any mistake. This is big barrier :|

 

My reply will be all Falcon 4 related and this is a good point to start. Pilotasso said that there are more purists in Falcon 4 community. There you have your solution - radio channel is for strict, informative and by hand-book communication - not for charming everyone!:D It will let you avoid grammar problems most of the time.

 

As for being purist - people often get to things sloppy and "easy" way thinking that these two things will make them "happy".

 

Well put, I've never played Falcon, in what way is it different from Lockon?

 

After a Falcon 4 mission (not to mention a coop MP mission) one can actually write an After Action Report! Needless to say more.

 

Just playing a Dynamic Campaign is more fun than Lock On (excluding flight model). And wat's more you can save your Singleplayer progress at any time (before/after the mission) and invite your friends to form a 4-ship wing and comply the mission together!

 

Entering a mission without proper Briefing is just pointless.

 

Then you enter THE WORLD. Start your engines (the whole procedure) and taxi to runway in proper order as per Air Traffic Controller instructions. Same with every other aspect of flying in AirBase proximity including exact departure heading.

 

Soon things will go really fast. Mentioned strict communication is not just for fun. In such a complex as Falcon's 4 enviroment not following some basic communication procedures often ends up the whole circus.

 

NOW you form a wing, order (if you're in command) everyone to set up avionics and prepare to really focus... You can get first contact report from your element minutes after takeoff or just minutes before reaching the target area. Sometimes you'll get into ambush (or you will ambush yourself) on your way home. It's all dynamic and you'll never know.

 

Even when there's only one human pilot left you can still hear his getting all excited, nervous and mad because of low fuel and 3 MiG-21s on his tail. Most of the time "death" of all other wing elements doesn't ruin guys big moment. Then he'll see a dot on his 2 o'clock and hear "One, Pitbull!" on his radio - that's another friendly (AI) element going into action!

 

...

 

This is only a glimpse.

 

Funny thing is I use to talk about this a while (year or two) ago and I was considered a "whiner". And now... It's just took you more time, guys! :P

[RedTiger]

@Bucic

 

About Falcon, I've said before that the dynamic campaign is great but isn't the end-all be-all, but for multiplayer, maybe it is. You're post got be thinking about my single player experiences with F4AF's campaign. It can get rather dry, TBH, but I could see how the multiplayer aspect would change that. Perhaps you need a random mission generator with real dynamic objectives to stave away the AirQuake.

 

The problem is that I think most here are going to want to fly against other people and not just with them. I can say all day that I think the AI in F4AF is rather good and it can be very difficult on 2010 Ace settings since "the AI" will include an entire front in conflict -- SAMs, MANPADs, and a whole wall of ARH-armed MiGs and Sus that don't even really exist in those numbers, but others will probably doubt this and then proceed to prove me wrong with their AARs. :cry: In some cases I don't see that being the case though. As stated before, some A/G missions can be almost suicidal and even things like fighter sweeps can have you greatly out numbered. Falcon's campaign is very much a game of realizing when you're screwed and need to abort and RTB or risk a death and lost wing men.

 

Getting head to head to work in a campaign like this would be difficult. If I'm hitting a SAM site on one side of the map, how do you make sure that the other side knows that I'm there without explicitly telling them that I'm there OR forcibly steering them in my direction? Against the AI you just go about your mission and have to deal whatever the campaign decides to throw at you while you do it. In a multiplayer dynamic campaign, you'd almost have to have some sort of artificial way to ensure contact between players.

[Bucic]

Falcon's campaign is very much a game of realizing when you're screwed and need to abort and RTB or risk a death and lost wing men.

 

Isn't it the oposition to a game definition? You are rewarded for sensible decissions / punished (put in front of a Court Martial!) for making stupid ones. Unlike most of the games.

 

Getting head to head to work in a campaign like this would be difficult. If I'm hitting a SAM site on one side of the map, how do you make sure that the other side knows that I'm there without explicitly telling them that I'm there OR forcibly steering them in my direction? Against the AI you just go about your mission and have to deal whatever the campaign decides to throw at you while you do it. In a multiplayer dynamic campaign, you'd almost have to have some sort of artificial way to ensure contact between players.

 

I agree up pto a point. Pushing for filling most of the enviroment with human players to make head to head common is a tradeoff for making it complex and full of life (ironic) and often would mean a dead end.

 

The other thing is a better multiplayer (combined LO and F4 style :)) would attract more people ;)

 

Edit:

There's one more thing. Take the DCS BS for example. The thing will be much harder to fly and just to avoid hitting the ground. This will sort at least part of the problem :shifty:

[mvsgas]

@Bucic

 

About Falcon, I've said before that the dynamic campaign is great but isn't the end-all be-all, but for multiplayer, maybe it is. You're post got be thinking about my single player experiences with F4AF's campaign. It can get rather dry, TBH, but I could see how the multiplayer aspect would change that. Perhaps you need a random mission generator with real dynamic objectives to stave away the AirQuake.

 

The problem is that I think most here are going to want to fly against other people and not just with them. I can say all day that I think the AI in F4AF is rather good and it can be very difficult on 2010 Ace settings since "the AI" will include an entire front in conflict -- SAMs, MANPADs, and a whole wall of ARH-armed MiGs and Sus that don't even really exist in those numbers, but others will probably doubt this and then proceed to prove me wrong with their AARs. :cry: In some cases I don't see that being the case though. As stated before, some A/G missions can be almost suicidal and even things like fighter sweeps can have you greatly out numbered. Falcon's campaign is very much a game of realizing when you're screwed and need to abort and RTB or risk a death and lost wing men.

 

Getting head to head to work in a campaign like this would be difficult. If I'm hitting a SAM site on one side of the map, how do you make sure that the other side knows that I'm there without explicitly telling them that I'm there OR forcibly steering them in my direction? Against the AI you just go about your mission and have to deal whatever the campaign decides to throw at you while you do it. In a multiplayer dynamic campaign, you'd almost have to have some sort of artificial way to ensure contact between players.

 

In multivipers, we had many Force on Force campaigns using Falcon AF

( human pilots both sides) but guess what is the main complain when we do that type of campaign........

People complain of unfair dogfights or strikes, unrealistic missiles performance, vulching tactics. Pretty much what this tread is about. So we do not do Force on Force no more. Falcon is a great campaign and it works rather well with everyone on the same side working for the same goal. The moment on person changes anything on the campaign to fit their preferences (whether they want more A2G missions or whan to attack a specific type of target) , the game starts having problem (Flight stop being produce by game, only specific type of flight being created and so on) So Falcon AF is great for multi player ( everyone on same side) bad for human player on both sides.

[Excelsior]

The S77th brought us the LL (Lomac league)

The 504th, 355th and 44th brought us CAW (Crimean Air Wars)

The 169th has ran not one but two ladders and Black Sea showdown.

The 159th, 44th, 504th etc brought us LOCERF

The TUAF, RAF etc brought us Cooperative Archer

 

Probably some more that have slipped my memory.

 

All fine DEDICATED squadrons that brought a lot to the lock-on community, and not one had the audacity or gall to call themselves the "Official" ladder or campaign. But in comes a L33t FPS'er with a ladder site who only just started probably didn't even know that half of these existed, never mind the fact they insult these achievements with this "Official" business.

 

My 2c worth.

 

BTW IIRC a FPS ladder site also tried to sink its fangs into Lockon about a year or two ago, spammed the forums for a while but were shunned. Related by chance. lol

[GGTharos]

The S77th brought us the LL (Lomac league)

The 504th, 355th and 44th brought us CAW (Crimean Air Wars)

 

OMFG! Someone remembers! With the way DCS is going we might be able to revive it some day with more convenience for the admins...I should hope!

 

The 169th has ran not one but two ladders and Black Sea showdown.

The 159th, 44th, 504th etc brought us LOCERF

The TUAF, RAF etc brought us Cooperative Archer

 

 

Just a correction here; the 44th didn't do a whole lot for LOCERF, if anything. We simply haven't had the time to help out, but it's a very cool effort.

[Excelsior]

OMFG! Someone remembers! With the way DCS is going we might be able to revive it some day with more convenience for the admins...I should hope!

 

A great relief to Wolfies sanity. But will it stop Paulies drunken antics on TS. :music_whistling: ;) :D

[RedTiger]

In multivipers, we had many Force on Force campaigns using Falcon AF

( human pilots both sides) but guess what is the main complain when we do that type of campaign........

People complain of unfair dogfights or strikes, unrealistic missiles performance, vulching tactics.Pretty much what this tread is about. So we do not do Force on Force no more. Falcon is a great campaign and it works rather well with everyone on the same side working for the same goal. The moment on person changes anything on the campaign to fit their preferences (whether they want more A2G missions or whan to attack a specific type of target) , the game starts having problem (Flight stop being produce by game, only specific type of flight being created and so on) So Falcon AF is great for multi player ( everyone on same side) bad for human player on both sides.

 

Hehehe...figures. :doh:

 

So everybody who read my previous post, disregard that. It looks like no matter what type of missions you have and even if you have a study sim that everyone swears is real as dirt, you're gonna have complaining and accusations of AirQuake and unrealistic tactics as long as the play is head to head. It comes with the territory I suppose!

[Grimes]

We at TCL-Team Combat League also appologize to other who contributed to the original posts of Grimes..

 

Sorry One and All:doh:

 

No worries mate.

 

If anything is to be learned from this is that, I think, Lock-ons multiplayer is as effected by the gameplay mechanics as the attitudes of those playing the game. The discussion of Falcon 4, and how its mentality of being a "study-sim" has a different player base from LO has brought up good points. While Lock-on lacks some of the aspects that appeal the hardcore players, I think its quite flexible with how we play the game. There is so much more variety of what the LO playerbase is appealed by, versus Faclon 4.

 

The answer to what is "lockons Current Multiplayer State" is its all a matter of choice. We can play this like a really large BF2 aircombat map, or we can be like Faclon4. This is what makes Lockon great.

 

Truth is its ultimately every players choice. But the mission makers and server hosts out there share the greatest influences on this choice.

[RvETito]

You got that right Grimes. We all should respect the right of choice to each other. We are diferent individuals and seems like we keep forgetting that LO unite us, it doesn't (or shouldn't?) devide us.

 

To be honest, I don't see bright future in LO's multiplayer. I'm flying online for a lil bit more than 2 years and I don't see any progress. What was back in 2006 is the same now, with only few exceptions. I would rather prefer to give that to the limitations and imperfections of the game, I would never dare to question anyone's right to choose. It's just that I'm about to run out of options what to choose- it's too gray in LO lately...

 

Since you mantioned Falcon I can tell you that I actualy started to explore it recently and really started to like it. Because with my work with Black Shark I realized that my choice is a study sim. That's why I'm looking forward to it's release (and trying to give my best to make it happen) and I think it will make a huge difference.

[Bucic]

Truth is its ultimately every players choice. But the mission makers and server hosts out there share the greatest influences on this choice.

 

This is rather bad situation. People given the choice choose wrong too often generaly. That's why we have the law. Like I said before - too many players choose the easy way in far more than one aspect of Lock On.

 

ED can keep their "sim for all" ideology (adjustable options), but not in the multiplayer field. ED claims it's all about no compromise, hardcore study sim now. Multiplayer is the element where ED can prove that. Or not.

[RvEYoda]

I would really like to know what this "Study sim" means. If it means you cannot

compete, then falcon 4 is not.

 

I would say F4 has more MP functionality and more places where you can improve,

more consistency ==> more "ace levels".

 

However, it is so frustratingly hard and annoying to get up and running compared to

lockon (which is just install, patch, HL, done), and while its graphics or flight model

might be more mathematically accurate, Lo one sure feels more dynamic.

 

Falcon is sooooo low on the scale of user friendlieness, and i'm NOT talking

about it being more advanced (because that is just a positive thing :))

 

Hilarious post AS:pilotfly:

[192nd_Erdem]

Well, I'm full about this matter.

 

I waited Lock-On for 2 years before it was out, and immidiately formed a squadron after it's out. I've watched the progress of LO and it'scommunity over years, and I still do, though I'm not very active in LO.

 

What I want to tell you is, indeed the online community changed over the years. In the first years - before FC was released-, online flying was much more coop oriented. The squadrons were mostly doing coop missions which teamwork was essential. The situation in Hyperlobby wasn't very different. There weren't a "dedicated server traffic" like we do now, only 1-2 "Airquake" servers and the rest were mainly coop missions created by simmers.

 

Though, this situation didn't last long. When the FC was very near, LO online was already turned into a "AirQuake" community. I think the reasons were:

 

*The game was unstable, it was really a hardwork to get 8 people in the server for a coop and get it going well.

*The game didn't offer proper realism, there weren't enough "depth" to keep people interested in coop play.

*Mission editor was very limited for making interesting coop missions. People got bored of "Blow that building and come back alive" and "Shoot those Red planes down and make it back" type missions fast.

*Limited in-game communication. Communication between squadrons, limited Tower/AWACS interaction etc.

*Lastly, the most important aspect of coop flying; the AI was horrible. It wasn't smart, always followed a predictable pattern(those "fixed" bombing altitudes always drove me mad), and overally it was a bitch to get it do what you wanted(mostly you couldn't).

 

There should be more, but these are the main reasons from the top of my head. I think combination of these and other factors have made Coop style flying a "headache" and "so little gain for so much work". At least for me. So, with coop guys frustrated and leaving for the other sims or "staying back" like me; AirQuake became more and more popular. The best indication is the "invention" of hacks and exploits for Lock-On. Why would anyone care to invent those? Because the only important thing is not teamwork, not what's sims are for; "living it", but winning. No matter what.

 

Now, I think Lock-On online is at where it should be. Yes, surprising but LO is not a very realistic sim at all, I'd consider it "semi-realistic" compared to others. But it's good looking and full of action. So, no wonder why we're here.

 

I think ED is aware of this, and to "keep away" from the LO's reputation and to make a fresh start; they seperated BS from LO. Thus made a new approach: cutting all the "half-finished" planes from the engine and starting all over with full-fidelity modelling. Improving AI and Mission Editor. Hopefully this will bring back all coop players and allow for much more fun and atmospheric missions.

 

So, if you don't like "Online Quakering"; just stay away, do something else while Black Shark arrives. It will be what you want. And when it arrives, just make sure you provide proper feedback to make it much better for cooperative flying.

 

Erdem out.

[EvilBivol-1]

The thread has been cleaned to keep the substantive discussion and remove the OT.

 

We can't spend hours sifting through days-old threads to look for OT postings. It's much easier for us to close them and issue warnings. If you want to keep smart and useful MP ideas flowing, everyone is accountable for their posts to keep threads on topic and conflict-free.

 

Make an effort.